Forum:Invader ZIM Wiki Policies
So, new forum thread. The rules on this wiki are still under construction, and could really use some major expansion. So, here, let's all just spill all our policy ideas right here. For a new rule start a new level two heading (or section), and then we'll cast our votes to see if the rule stays or goes. Just to keep thing professional, take a look at the policies that apply on every wiki, whether you like it or not, and at for ideas. If you have suggestions or more ideas on an already existing subject, please include them along with your vote and only along with your vote under the appropriate votes section, so we can keep the page organized. This is a very serious matter, so no fooling around. Content Page Layout For the sake of consistency, we should create a content page layout policy so you know what section goes first. Basically, the order of the page. On most high Traffic articles, it looks like this: *'Appearance' *'Personality' *'Role In ''Invader Zim' *'Facts of Doom''' (If applicable) *'See also' (If applicable) *'Gallery' (If applicable) This should be there in this order on every character article. As for object articles, it is extremely inconsistent, as you can see that there are different section names for the same thing or there are a bunch crammed into one. Some have the same section names as other articles, but they are still not in the same order. Any ideas for this? Votes #I'm in favor of this. #I'm in favour of this plan 14:53, October 14, 2012 (UTC) #I guess that's best for the wiki. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 16:27, October 14, 2012 (UTC) :*Perhaps we should have a different section layout for object articles: -Appearance -Uses -Facts of Doom (w/a) -Gallery w/a) (I dunno if this is how you post comments, but this is sort of the way I saw it on another Wiki.Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 03:18, October 12, 2012 (UTC) ::My preferred format is: ::*Description ::*Facts of Doom ::*Gallery ::When we create get to making the infoboxes for objects, I plan to include the ::users of said object there. :::OK, but what I was originally saying was that we should include a section of the article that describes what its functiona and applications are.Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 04:12, October 12, 2012 (UTC) As you can see in Zim's Orbital Water Balloon, the description section covers the object's appearance and use. Also, are you against this rule of in favor? ::::Sooo, the layout you propose is "Description", "Facts", "Gallery"? Ok, I can live with that. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 16:08, October 14, 2012 (UTC) ::Yeah. I guess this gets a green light, then. Images Making sure that people don't upload anything inappropriate, stuff like that. Plus, I've seen a truckload of people who have uploaded fanart and didn't use it. Any of those, should be deleted as quickly as possible. This rule should be simple. Votes #I'm the one who nominated this. #I think we should have a different policy regarding what we do with fanart people upload onto articles: I think that, after we remove the fan material from the affected article(s), we should then paste it onto the uploader's talk page with an explanation/friendly warning; after all, many of them don't know that what they're doing is against the rules. Needless to say, however, this rule will not apply with obscene images/porn; we just delete them, and leave the user a somewhat less friendly warning. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 13:57, October 13, 2012 (UTC) ::Sounds good to me. :::Doctor, I looked around, and there is an image policy here. We should just add to it and reword a few things. Let's do it, then. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 20:20, October 13, 2012 (UTC) :Alrighty. #I say no. Images don't HAVE to be used on wikis. And, if we remove it, we might have just removed some really worthwhile pictures. I have made an entire gallery just out of unused pictures. ( Aaron Alexovich Art ). The only time we should remove pictures, is from an article, and it's something like fanart. Plus, fanart is a nice addition to the images. Sure it's a little more clutter, but..... fanart's still a nice addition. Who said this wiki has to be just facts? Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 16:25, October 14, 2012 (UTC) ::We can just make the rule so that there are no pornographic, racist, or just blatantly offensive images. Also, I had to move your vote so that it didn't get mixed up with the previous discussion. :::You're right, ZimFan. So, we can eliminate the "unused" aspect from the rules. And we're keeping my idea for what to do with fanart/fanfiction posted in articles? Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 10:21, October 15, 2012 (UTC) ::::Yes, the idea with the fanart on articles is good. ::::Yes. Also, how long do you think people should be banned for fanart/fanfiction in articles? ::::I think: ::::First Time: Warning ::::Second Time: 3 day ban ::::Third Time: 1 month ban ::::fourth time: 6 month ban ::::Fifth Time: 1 year ban ::::Sixth Time: Indef ban. ::::And if it's inappropriate, we go much stricter ::::First Time: 1 week ban ::::Second Time: 1 month ban ::::Third time: 6 month ban ::::And if they come back and add ANOTHER inappropriate picture: Indef ban. ::::That sound good? Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::::Seems fine to me. Sockpuppetry, Vandalism, Spam, curse words These are rather basic rules. The top 4 ban reasons on a wiki: SVSC S:Sockpuppetry V:Vandalism S:Spam C:Curse Words. Sockpuppetry You know, when someone makes another account, usually after a ban. Since they'll usually make a sockpuppet account after a long period ban, like 3 months, there usually is a no tolerance thing, so if that happens, the wiki will ban their IP for a indefinite amount of time. I say we do that. Votes: #I made this, so I obviously agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #Support. Vandalism Another thing you need to know. A vandal will destroy pages with no intent. And if you let him run amok, the wiki will eventually be in ruins. Usually the punishments are harsh, where it's no warning, they go flat out with a 6 month ban, and if they do it again, they'll be banned forever. but we shouldn't be as harsh. I say First Time: Warning Second Time: 1 week ban Third Time: 1 month ban Fourth Time: 3 month ban Fifth Time: 1 year ban Sixth Time: Indefinite ban Votes: #I made it, so I agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #Support. #I agree with this. Vandalism must NOT be tolerated. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 20:16, October 17, 2012 (UTC) Spam One of the biggest problems on a wiki. SPAM. 'A user will do something thats doesnt feature as vandalism, but is still just as bad. They won't remove things: They'll ADD things. Things such as "WDAWEWHREWQRKQNRQWRNKQW" "SPAM!" That kinda of things. Usually the punishments aren't as harsh as a vandal, but I say they deserve the same amount of punishment as a vandal. First Time: Warning Second Time: 1 week ban Third Time: 1 month ban Fourth time: 3 month ban Fifth Time: 1 year ban Sixth Time: Indefinite ban. Votes: #I made it, so I agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #Support. # I think that we shouldn't go from "Warning" to "One Week"; we should have a "1 Day" banning period in between the two. It makes more sense, and isn't as draconian. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 20:19, October 17, 2012 (UTC) # No, just... NO. I mean, a 1 day ban? That's just TOO soft. We can't show editors we can be stepped on! We can't always be happy go lucky. I think 1 week is good. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 22:17, October 17, 2012 (UTC) ::I agree with ZimFan. Curse Words The last major thing: CURSE WORDS. Someone will go in a fit of rage and curse quite a bit. The punishments will start off with a 6 hour long ban period, like a "Cool down" period. And every time after the fourth time, it will always be a three day ban. I think we should follow that. First Time: 6 hours Second Time: 3 days Third Time: 1 week Every Time after fourth time: 3 weeks. Votes: #I made this, so I agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #I'm mot very sure about this one, the bans are a bit short. If they only get six hours, they'll just come back later. I suggest that the first ban last three days, the second a week, and a two week ban if they do it again. If the message is just extremely offensive, such as said user insulting another person here, being racist, etc, and then ignoring our warnings, they should warrant 6 month ban or longer. #Actually, 3 days is a little long for first timers. I say 1 day first time, 3 days second time, 1 week third time. And if they really are extremely offensive, 1 month. That's a little harsh though blossom, half a year. Although if they do ignore our warnings, yeah, maybe a rather long ban is in order. But still, not SIX months. 3 months could do. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 19:34, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #Also, we should ''really give the offender two warnings before whipping out the banhammer. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 20:22, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #TOO SOFT! 1 warnings enough. If they don't adhere, we don't try the warning sequence again, we go straight to a ban. No matter what, a warnings a warning, where it gives you your one and ONLY chance before real consquences. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 22:19, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #To blossom though, I though it over, and I realized I DID say 6 hours is a cool down time. So that should be our first resort. But if they DO come back and do it again, we can do a 3 day thing. Let me revise it. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 22:22, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::Too soft? Banning should NEVER, EVER be our first resort. We must always give them at least ONE warning, regardless of the law broken.Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 22:55, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::::Sorry Doctor, but, they should at least know of wikia rules, and no cursing is one of them, Heck, it's not acceptable really anywhere. So yeah, banning should be our first resort. ::::::And if they are unaware of our rules? I've been in that position a few times before, and I was banned for six hours because I made what I thought were good-faith edits. Sometimes different Wikis have different policies, and we can't just outright BAN someone 'cos they acted on the assumption that this Wiki has the same rules as another they've previously contributed. I simply won't stand for that. Except in cases of obvious and intentional spam or vandalism, we MUST institute the one-warning system first before a ban. ::::::DOCTOR. Cursing isn't ok anywhere, and this wiki's gonna be different. Warnings for cursing were gave out by peoples parents when they swore in public. We don't need to repeat it. So, there should be NO warning for cursing. At all. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 23:20, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::::::On the contrary, some legitimate Wikis I know of actually don't ban people for swearing; I'm not saying we should go to that extreme either, but we certainly shouldn't ban 'em right off the bat for saying a minor swear word on Chat. Now, if someone drops the f-bomb, we should ban 'em immediately, but if they just say something like "What the h...", that does NOT merit a ban. Besides, not all people's parents wash out their children's mouths with soap every time they say "crap." So no, we must always, always, ALWAYS give them warning. And I will not rest until that is the case. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 23:33, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::Doctor, a curse word is a curse word, no matter what. Whether it's F***, C***, or even H**L. Besides, most the times it's in a fit of rage, so a day is a cool down. If it's a warning, GUESS WHAT DOCTOR? They'll just get pissed and curse, and just go to a ban. So we should remove the middle man! So, I will not rest until we agree there should be no warning. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 23:39, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::Words like "damn" or "crap" are fine with me, as long as they don't use it on the wiki excessively. The F, B, and a few other swears are what merit a ban in my book, but they should warrant a ban that lasts a day as a penalty for first offense. A day's not that long. ::::::::::Not even that really. Because remember, this isn't inhabited by teenagers. People under 13 can view this. And what will the parents say? They won't let them on here, even with those things. Not ALL parents are ok with swears, sadly. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 23:50, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::::Hmm, I see you point with that. So, no swearing of any kind on talk pages, articles and whatnot. :::::::::::Yeah, and do you agree with the no warning thing? (Sorry to drag you into this, but I don't feel a warnings necessary, but I also don't want me and doctor to end up all made at each other.) Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 00:02, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::That is were the whole reprimand thing comes in: by telling them off and threatening to ban them the second time, we make it VERY clear to everyone that swearing is NOT TOLERATED. We can make sure they don't do it again simply by THREATENING them with a ban. If we ARE stupid enough to ban them right off the bat, we will be all the more likely to spark resentment from the user, and all the LESS likely to come back here after their ban is up. Sorry, ZimFan, but your idea is unnecessarily brutal and - in the end - will do more harm than good. ::::::::::You know what doctor? Let's settle this in chat. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 00:35, October 18, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::::I see both your points, but I am neutral with the ban thing. ::::::::::::Well, it appears we are at an impasse. As such, I will propose a compromise: We implement your "no warning" idea ONLY when it comes to swearing or vandalism on articles or the talk pages thereof (after all, why would you need to swear on articles?); however, we implement my idea when it comes to the Chat room and minor, non-malicious instances on User Talk Pages. Sound good? Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 00:35, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::::Just come on the chat, because this forum talkpage like thing isn't working. ::A day long ban for the first ban sounds okay. I find six hours way to short and that's even shorter than the time I spend at school. Additionally, some people come to the wiki '''just to insert stuff like this into articles, so you guys should be wary of whether it's done on purpose or not. ::The last thing I'm going to bring up for this is inappropriate Usernames. Should they be auto-banned and then told to request a username change from the staff to get de-banned or get a warning first and then banned if the do not comply? ::That is a good idea. Because if it's a username, the admins can't remove it. All we can do is a ban, and hope they will comply. SUPPORT! Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 22:58, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::I agree. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 23:14, October 17, 2012 (UTC) Manual of style I find this somewhat important. Basically, for people who don't know what this is, it's how our articles are written (present tense, past tense, etc.) We have an official language, which is american English. We should not use a mix of British English and American, as this can confuse readers that are at a more beginner level. Additionally, we should inform editors not to speculate on articles (no what ifs, maybe(s), quite possibly, etc). Votes #This rule should be good for our wiki. Syntax is important. #SUPPORT. Although, if they speculate on articles, how long should they be banned? I kinda find though speculations a rather less harsh type of vandalism. So here's what I think: First Time: Warning Second Time: 1 day ban Third Time: 1 week ban Fourth Time: 1 month ban Fifth Time: 6 month ban Sixth and FINAL Time: Indefinite ban. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 19:40, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #I think that, when referencing events from episodes in articles, we should always use the past tense (eg: "In the episode Ten Minutes of Doom, Screamy told Dib where Zim was.") However, when describing characters or objects that are not deceased or destroyed, we should use the present tense. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 20:28, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::That sounds good.